Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Attorney Says, Meadows Will Not Cooperate with January 6 Committee Until Court Battle Over Executive Privilege is Resolved; Rittenhouse Defense Rests, Closing Arguments Monday; Blinken Says, All U.S. Citizens Who've Asked for Help Leaving Afghanistan Have Been Offered an Opportunity To Do So. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired November 12, 2021 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: A very good Friday morning. It is Friday, but there's still news. I'm Jim Sciutto.

ERICA HILL, CNN NEWSROOM: Yes, certainly no shortage of that this morning. I'm Erica Hill.

Mark Meadows had until this hour, 10:00 A.M. Eastern, to cooperate with a request from the January 6th committee for a deposition. Well, we learned what's going to happen. According to a statement released by his attorney, Meadows will not comply until the courts rule on former President Trump's claim of executive privilege. So, the committee now has a choice of whether to charge Meadows with contempt.

SCIUTTO: Big choice. As it turns out, a D.C. circuit court of appeals will hear out former President Trump's argument for asserting executive privilege, this to come on November 30th. Overnight, a three-judge panel, notably, all those judges appointed by Democrats, sided with Trump with the transfer of the White House documents to the January 6th committee on hold until then.

And the importance of those White House communications underlying further this morning by a new audiotape just released in which the former president appears to defend the insurrectionists even as they chanted, Hang Mike Pence, on January 6th. And please listen carefully. This is a conversation he had with ABC News Journalist Jonathan Karl back in March.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you worried about him during that siege? Were you worried about his safety?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: No. I thought he was well protected. And I had heard that he was in good shape. No, because I heard had he was in very good shape. But, but -- no, I think --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because you heard those chants. That was terrible. I mean, those -- the --

TRUMP: He could have -- well, the people were very angry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were saying, hang Mike Pence.

TRUMP: Because it's common sense, Jon, it's common sense that you're supposed to protect -- how can you -- if you know a vote is fraudulent, right, how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The people were very angry, he said. We're going to have much more on that in a moment.

First, let's do get to CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju as well as CNN Reporter Kara Scannell, who's been covering this.

Manu, first, Meadows not going to appear. Have you had a reaction from the committee yet?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the committee is now waiting to see whether Meadows will appear and say that he's not going to cooperate. What's very clear what Meadows is saying is that there will not be -- he will not answer the committee's questions because of fight that's happening now in court over executive privilege, saying that because Donald Trump, the former president, says that he shouldn't comply because executive privilege applies. Until that is resolved in court, he will not answer any of the committee's questions.

This is what his attorney just said in a statement. Our correspondence over the last few weeks shows a sharp legal dispute with the committee. The issues concern whether Mr. Meadows can be compelled to testify, and whether, even if he could, that he could be forced to answer questions that involve privileged communications. Legal disputes are appropriately resolved by the courts.

The statement goes on to say, it would be irresponsible for Mr. Meadows to prematurely resolve that dispute by voluntarily waiving privileges that are at the heart of those legal issues.

Now, what the committee has said is they will just simply not accept that explanation. They say he must appear before their panel. In fact, in a statement last night, they said that if he doesn't appear, that they will prepare to move forward a potential referral for criminal contempt charges. We saw the committee do that earlier when Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser, did not appear. The committee then did refer for criminal contempt charges. The full House then approved that referral. Now it's up to the Justice Department to decide whether to go ahead and prosecute.

So, that's a big question looming over all these witnesses and all these committees. If these witnesses do not testify, will the Justice Department move ahead and charge them with criminal contempt? Still uncertain, but what's clear is the Democrats and the two Republicans on this committee are not going to accept Mark Meadows' explanation here that he cannot answer questions because of the separate legal dispute paying out in the courts. So, we'll see what the committee decides. But at the moment, they're waiting for him to say something. At the moment, his attorneys are saying he won't answer their questions.

HILL: Right. So, as we wait for that, Kara, as Manu mentioned, there is this other legal dispute playing out now. We have an expedited schedule that's been put out for the remainder of the month of November. What exactly did Trump get out of this stay, essentially? What does it do for him?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN REPORTER: Well, Erica, it buys him some time. He has tried to fight using this executive privilege claim, the House committee gaining access to 46 records. The National Archives has already turned over 90 records in response to the request. But these 46 Trump is saying that he wants to be covered by executive privilege, they haven't. That includes call logs, visitor logs, schedules, drafts of speeches that all related to January 6th, and three handwritten memos by Mark Meadows, which puts him squarely in the middle of this fight.

[10:05:02]

So, the committee now is waiting for these documents. Those are on hold, like you said, as the appeals court has set oral arguments for November 30th. There won't be a decision on that until likely early December.

And this is the first batch of documents. There are more than 700 other documents that the committee is waiting to get from the National Archives. Trump is asserting privilege over some of those. But the first leg of this are these 46 documents that the appeals court will deal with later this month. Erica?

SCIUTTO: The question is what was the president up to on that day, January 6th, and before it. Kara Scannell, Manu Raju, thanks so much to both of you.

For more on the legal fight, let's talk to Federal and White Collar Criminal Attorney Caroline Polisi and former Federal Prosecutor Shan Wu. Good to have you both on.

Shan, the court seems to have given Mark Meadows and others kind of a legal off-ramp, right? They could say, listen, we're not going to appear until all these questions about executive privilege are settled. How long does that take, in your view, and where does it end?

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's a pretty short off-ramp at the moment, Jim. This is a pretty expedited briefing schedule, and I think the panel will rule on it rather quickly, probably early in December. Of course, Trump's lawyers are anticipating this. This is like the worst case panel for them with this make-up of judges. They could seek further delay with an en banc review and then, of course, they'll try to go to the Supreme Court as well. So, they're trying to buy a lot of time. I think they certainly bought at least into early December. HILL: Then, Shan, just to follow that up for a second, if we're then moving on to other courts and potentially the Supreme Court, what does that time look like? How far out could that potentially push things?

WU: Yes. That's hard to say. I mean, theoretically, it could push it close to the midterms or even theoretically beyond. But I think one important factor is to consider is the court is very concerned about looking partisan here. And, in a way, the closer it gets to the midterms, the more politicized it looks for them. So, in their own way, they may feel some internal pressure to rule on this sooner than later. So, there is some hope there or they faster track to this.

SCIUTTO: Caroline, for a moment to the president's comments to Jonathan Karl in March seeming to defend the violent rioters even as they were chanting things like, hang Mike Pence, saying he understands their anger, et cetera. I mean, is there any criminal jeopardy for that or is the solution purely political, right, like an impeachment process, which, frankly, has already passed with the president's acquittal? I mean, does he face, as we often ask on so many of these things, does he face any actual consequences for this kind of thing?

CAROLINE POLISI, WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL ATTORNEY: Yes, at the moment, Jim, likely not. No criminal charges obviously have been brought in terms of like a criminal conspiracy, for example. The hallmark of a conspiracy would be a meeting of the minds to commit a crime. The tape released thus far doesn't give that indication. But, absolutely, the political fight is under way.

And I agree with Shan, this is being billed as sort of a win for the Trump side and it's really not. It's fairly typical and normal for stays of this nature to be put in place while the courts decide the issues on the merits.

SCIUTTO: I see.

HILL: When we look at the subpoenas, the request for these witnesses, so we're waiting to see if Mark Meadows shows up, and actually says he's not going to answer questions in person. Meantime, does what we're seeing play out now on Capitol Hill, could that potentially -- what we're seeing with Mark Meadows, could that, Shan, put any further pressure on the Justice Department to act on Steve Bannon?

WU: I think it does. As a former DOJ veteran, I am a little bit perplexed at this point at the amount of time it's taking. It doesn't seem like that complex of a case in terms of evidence. I have great regard for A.G. Garland, but I do think it's important that he realizes he's no longer a court of appeals judge. He's prosecutor now, it's a different role.

SCIUTTO: Caroline, I wonder, can you explain why it's taking three weeks here? Because, in effect, regardless of what the process is, it's giving some license, right, for others to do the same thing, to defy these subpoenas.

POLISI: Yes. And I would just note that Mark Meadows' attorneys' letter issued recently really is legally disingenuous in that. You know, there is no blanket privilege, and he's citing to the separate issue really that is before the court, essentially stonewalling, saying that Meadows won't appear until this issue is decided. It's really not the same issue. And as Shan knows well, a privilege isn't invoked in a blanket sense. The witness has to show up.

I mean, an attorney can direct his or her client with sort of a scalpel and not a hammer, if you will, in terms of specific issues with respect to privilege.

[10:10:03]

Having myself represented a client before a House congressional committee, I can tell you that that's how it's done. And, you know, you work these things out in advance.

From a practical standpoint, they may actually want to wait because I do think that they will win on the merits and get these memos that Meadows had written. It will be much more fruitful to actually asking questions about those memos than if they didn't have those.

HILL: Yes, great points. Caroline Polisi, Shan Wu, great to have you both with us this morning, thank you.

WU: Good to see you.

HILL: Still to come this morning, in Wisconsin, attorneys craft their closing arguments in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, what jurors will be listening for. That's next.

Plus, Howard University students protesting their living conditions, complaining of mold, rats, roaches. What they want to see in terms of action from the school, and the White House, and what's happening to them.

SCIUTTO: And an update from Afghanistan. Conditions there worsen as Taliban solidifies control. Those left behind increasingly desperate to leave and in danger. More on the effort to get hundreds of American university students, women, out of the country later this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

HILL: Kyle Rittenhouse could just be days away from learning his fate, whether he will go to prison or walk free. Jurors are set to hear final arguments in the double homicide trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Monday.

SCIUTTO: They will then decide if Rittenhouse was justified in killing people, two people, shooting another during a night of protest last year.

CNN's Adrienne Broaddus, she's in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following this. Adrienne, tell us where we stand as we go into weekend and next week. I mean, we could be coming to the end of this trial quite soon. ADRIENNE BROADDUS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Quite soon, indeed. And keep in mind at the start, the judge said he wanted this to be a speedy trial. And on Monday, we know closing arguments have been scheduled. The defense and the prosecution each have 2 1/2 hours to present their closing argument, and that includes rebuttal time.

There's some indication that there could possibly be more charges on Monday. There was a bit of an indication yesterday that the prosecution will ask for lesser included charges to be submitted to the jury. By contrast, the defense says it only needs an hour-and-a- half for its closing arguments. On Monday, we know the prosecution will show clips from that night, video clips from when Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two, combined, those clips total about 30 minutes.

We heard from three witnesses yesterday, and here's a little bit of the conversation with the last witness the defense called to the stand, Drew Hernandez. Listen in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COREY CHIRAFISI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Contact with Kyle that evening was -- just in terms of what you observed, I'm asking. Did you observe him acting in an aggressive manner to anyone?

DREW HERNANDEZ, DEFENSE WITNESS: In no way, shape, or form, the first time I saw Kyle, he actually de-escalated a situation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever posted anything on social media --

HERNANDEZ: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- in support of Kyle Rittenhouse?

HERNANDEZ: One could argue, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROADDUS: And come Monday, the fate of Kyle Rittenhouse will likely be in the hands of the jury. The judge said he will spend about 45 minutes reading those instructions to members of the jury. Right now, there are 18 members, but that number will decrease to 12. Jim and Erica?

HILL: Adrienne Broaddus for us in Kenosha this morning, Adrienne, thank you.

Joining us now, Mark Eiglarsh, Criminal Defense Attorney and former Prosecutor. Mark, good to see you this morning.

So, what are you expecting to hear in these closing arguments on Monday? How do you think and where do you think they'll be focused?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think the prosecutor who, with utmost love and respect, I say his ego is not his amigo, will likely go over the top and try to claim something that he has failed to prove, which is that he should never have used deadly force because he didn't reasonably fear death or great bodily harm.

Unfortunately for him, as the world now sees, the evidence seems to suggest just the opposite. They've established, the defense did, even prior to the defendant taking the witness stand, that he did reasonably fear death or great bodily harm and legally had the right to use deadly force in each of the three instances that he used it. I think this is going to be a fairly quick acquittal.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you though, Mark, because the prosecutors have stated that they may seek for the jury to consider lesser charges. They could range from second-degree intentional homicide down to second-degree reckless homicide. And I understand there might be a difference in the charges based on each of the people that Rittenhouse killed based on those circumstances. Do you believe that the prosecution has made the case for any of those lesser charges?

EIGLARSH: No. It doesn't matter. Don't get lost in the weeds on what those charges are. If he was justified in using force, it doesn't matter. The jurors will reject any other charges that are put in front of them. The key issue is whether he was justified or not.

The only concern that I have as a trial lawyer is when they throw out anything that could possibly stick is that jurors sometimes -- and I don't think it's going to happen here -- will say, all right, they didn't prove the main charge but maybe as a compromise, we'll hit him with one of the lesser charges.

[10:20:14]

I don't think they're going to do that here. And, quite frankly, I think it's unfair for the prosecutor to throw those out when the primary issue is whether he used reasonable force, and, quite frankly, I think he did.

HILL: You said it's not too early to wonder whether this was really a waste of taxpayer dollar and judicial resources. The families of the victims, though, obviously, are looking for justice. What do you say to them?

EIGLARSH: I say to them, first of all, I'm sorry for your loss. I mean, obviously, I don't think he did the best actions by taking a gun and going to that scene. I don't think he was needed. I think he put himself in harm's way and others. That's not what he's on trial for. He's on trial for whether he committed murder, whether he was justified in using force, and I would tell these families, I am so sorry for your loss, but on a legal level, which is the only thing we're analyzing here, he didn't commit these crimes. He proved that he used reasonable force.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you, then, Mark, what this means, what the precedent is set here. Does that mean that anyone with a gun can volunteer themselves to help the police on their own accord, right, heavily armed in the midst of protests, et cetera? Because that's, in effect, what happened here.

EIGLARSH: There's no precedent that's set. The law has always allowed people to lawfully carry guns and do the right thing. Every case is different, however. So, I don't think this case can plausibly be analogized to the next case where the case is going to be fact- sensitive. All we're saying is, number one, in this particular case, factually, he had a legal right to use deadly force, and, secondly, the precedent is a jury was impaneled, they heard the facts, the prosecutor presented his side, the defense got a chance to present their side, there was cross-examination on both sides, and the truth seems to suggest that the government failed to prove their case beyond to the conclusion of every reasonable doubt. That's the precedent.

SCIUTTO: Right. Well, we'll see how the public takes that precedent as well. Mark Eiglarsh, thanks for sharing your expertise.

EIGLARSH: My pleasure. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead this hour, the Taliban solidifying control of Afghanistan as conditions there steadily worsen. Next, new details from the State Department about what has been done to help Americans still on the ground.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

SCIUTTO: This just in, Secretary of State Antony Blinken says that as of Wednesday, all U.S. citizens who have asked for help from the U.S. to leave Afghanistan, in his words, have been offered an opportunity now to do so.

HILL: Let's bring in CNN Senior National Correspondent Alex Marquardt.

So, Alex, what can you tell us about these numbers and what that really means?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erica and Jim, of course, the Biden administration has come under fierce criticism for essentially leaving Americans behind after that final withdrawal, that final evacuation on August 31st. And what Secretary Blinken is saying now is that all remaining U.S. citizens in Afghanistan have been given the opportunity to leave the country.

Now, that certainly doesn't mean that all American citizens have left the country. There are some remaining, and I'll get into those numbers in just a second. But he's saying that all American citizens who they're in touch with have been given the opportunity to leave the country. There's a bit of a gray area there because he went on to say that those that had the necessary travel documents have been offered this opportunity.

But I did speak with a State Department spokesman yesterday who said that there are still around, well, fewer than 100 U.S. citizens who they have identified as prepared to depart. So, it sounds like there are still a number, fewer than 100, they say, who are ready to leave Afghanistan with those necessary travel documents. Secretary Blinken said that there were around 660 American citizens and legal permanent residents, so holders of green cards who have been able to be evacuated from Afghanistan, that presumably since that august 31st deadline.

But, Jim and Erica, we need to remember that in addition to these Americans -- and that number is fluctuating by the day because you have Afghan-American citizens who are changing their plans, deciding one day that they want to leave, the next day, no, they want to stay with their family. There are more people who are desperate to get out of Afghanistan, people who have worked with U.S. forces, special interest visa applicants and others, and even other who is haven't worked with the U.S. but have been targeted by the Taliban.

So, this is good news that it seems like most of the Americans, according to Secretary Blinken, all the Americans who want to get out are being the given the opportunity, but there are many, many more, as you know, who are desperate to flee.

SCIUTTO: In fact, most of those special immigrant visa applicants, who are those eligible still left behind. Alex Marquardt, thanks so much.

As we noted, there are still hundreds of Afghans who want to escape the country and who believe they are facing real threats. CNN has spoken to some who have now turned to private companies to get out, and some of those charging as much as $10,000 per person with no guarantees.

[10:30:02]

My next guest has been personally involved in trying to help in particular students and faculty.